Since this seems to be coming up a lot again since the draft lottery, along with rumours of teams being interested in Bowman and Q, I thought it might be useful to have a thread to discuss the situation. In every thread that it comes up, I am quite honestly amazed by the amount of misinformation that is out there on the subject, and I am genuinely interested in what people think happened, especially those who haven't been following it closely or haven't read the Jenner and Block Report.
To give a little context, I am a lifelong Blackhawk fan, since long before the Toews/Kane era. When the news of the Kyle beach incident came out, I was quite frankly disgusted with the entire situation. It seems pretty clear based on everything that came out that Aldridge is a sexual predator, and should be viewed as so. Also, I believe Kyle Beach, and what he describes happened to him is something nobody should have to deal with. I eagerly read the Jenner and Block report when it came out to better understand what happened and who was responsible. After reading the report, I was quite frankly a bit confused as to the continued hatred and accusations being directed at people who, according to the evidence we have, don't really deserve it.
There seems to be a few common things thrown out there that I just don't seem to hold up to what we know (so far). If there is something I am missing, or misunderstanding, I would genuinely like to know what it is. I am more than happy to change my view as more information becomes available.
1) What they "knew" at the time. To me this is the biggest thing that people seem to be getting wrong. It seems most people are conflating what we know now (IE what Beach has accused Aldridge of doing), to what the organization knew then. We know now that, if Beach's story is accurate, he was raped. Full stop. There is no evidence, however, that anybody within the organization were aware of anything close to that at the time. In the report, the incident was described to management as some combination of unwanted sexual advances and "trying to get under the sheets" that happened outside of the work environment. Thats it. People seem to be acting that they were told that Aldridge raped Beach and they just decided not to act on it.
2) The Blackhawks provided references for Aldridge, which he used to help get employment after he left the organization. This is simply not true, and is laid out very clearly in the report.
3) The players on the team "knew" at the time. Again, it's important to define what they "knew". There is no evidence that they knew anything close to what Beach would later allege. Even Sopel, one of only two players outside of Beach who claim that players "knew", says that all they "knew" was that Aldridge wanted to "touch penises". Boynton, the other player that has claimed that everyone "knew" could not provide any details on what led him to believe that everyone "knew". It is also important to note, that none of the other 12 players interviewed had any knowledge of the incident at the time (6 report never hearing anything about it until the news broke, the other 6 claim only to have rumours of the incident at training camp the next year). So 12 of the 14 players interviewed dispute the fact that the players were aware of the incident of the time and the two players that dispute that could provide no details other than Aldridge "wanted to touch penises"
4) The players were taunting Beach. Beach recalls being called derogatory words at the following training camp, as well as being asked if "he missed his boyfriend Brad". None of the players interviewed recall hearing any taunting. This, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen, but certainly suggests that it wasn't a rampant thing throughout training camp. Logically, I find it hard to believe that established NHL players would be taunting a prospect that is of no real threat to them. It seems to me much more likely, and this has been speculated, that it was more likely Black Aces who may have been more likely to be competing with Beach for spots and also more likely to have heard something about the incident.
5) Beach's teammates (IE Kane/Toews and co) failed him. This is another thing that seems to come up time and time again, especially with regards to Toews. First of all, the report details the extent to which the black Aces are separated from the active roster during playoff time. I was actually unaware prior to reading the report of just how separate the two groups were. The idea that this was a teammate that was in the trenches with players on that playoff run is just simply false. Not only was Beach not "teammates" with them during that playoff run, the degree to which the two groups of players were separated makes it much less likely that the active players had any idea of what was going on, and probably explains why 12 of the 14 players interviewed reported not knowing anything about the incident at the time.
6) Who was responsible for "looking into" the incident. Again, this seems to be something that people on this site in particular think is the responsibility of a variety of people, from Bowman to Q to the players. Based on everything we know, it seems that John McDonough said he would take care of it, and it seems everyone assumed that he did. The incident was brought to the attention of the organization in the Western Conference finals. Aldridge basically vanished from the team after the Cup celebrations. So in about a month the person in question was gone from the team. It seems reasonable to assume that most in the organization just assumed that proper policy was followed and that Aldridge was let go. Obviously, that did not happen, but again that seems to fall squarely at the feet of McDonough. It appears that he gave Aldridge the opportunity to leave under his own accord rather than complete a full investigation. This, again, seems to be the most valid criticism about how the whole thing was handled. I would be very interested to hear from someone with a better understanding of the law what should have been done in this situation. I do find it a bit hard to believe that McDonough wouldn't have at least gotten a lawyer's opinion on what should be done. Did the fact that the incident occur outside of the "workplace" affect the decision on what to do about it? If they had immediately fired Aldridge when the incident was brought forward, or removed him from his position immediately, would that have opened them up to being sued by him since, at the time, there was not a criminal accusation made and it did not happen as part of his employment with the Blackhawks? I genuinely don't know. I would love to get some input from someone with more understanding of the law than I.
To give a little context, I am a lifelong Blackhawk fan, since long before the Toews/Kane era. When the news of the Kyle beach incident came out, I was quite frankly disgusted with the entire situation. It seems pretty clear based on everything that came out that Aldridge is a sexual predator, and should be viewed as so. Also, I believe Kyle Beach, and what he describes happened to him is something nobody should have to deal with. I eagerly read the Jenner and Block report when it came out to better understand what happened and who was responsible. After reading the report, I was quite frankly a bit confused as to the continued hatred and accusations being directed at people who, according to the evidence we have, don't really deserve it.
There seems to be a few common things thrown out there that I just don't seem to hold up to what we know (so far). If there is something I am missing, or misunderstanding, I would genuinely like to know what it is. I am more than happy to change my view as more information becomes available.
1) What they "knew" at the time. To me this is the biggest thing that people seem to be getting wrong. It seems most people are conflating what we know now (IE what Beach has accused Aldridge of doing), to what the organization knew then. We know now that, if Beach's story is accurate, he was raped. Full stop. There is no evidence, however, that anybody within the organization were aware of anything close to that at the time. In the report, the incident was described to management as some combination of unwanted sexual advances and "trying to get under the sheets" that happened outside of the work environment. Thats it. People seem to be acting that they were told that Aldridge raped Beach and they just decided not to act on it.
2) The Blackhawks provided references for Aldridge, which he used to help get employment after he left the organization. This is simply not true, and is laid out very clearly in the report.
3) The players on the team "knew" at the time. Again, it's important to define what they "knew". There is no evidence that they knew anything close to what Beach would later allege. Even Sopel, one of only two players outside of Beach who claim that players "knew", says that all they "knew" was that Aldridge wanted to "touch penises". Boynton, the other player that has claimed that everyone "knew" could not provide any details on what led him to believe that everyone "knew". It is also important to note, that none of the other 12 players interviewed had any knowledge of the incident at the time (6 report never hearing anything about it until the news broke, the other 6 claim only to have rumours of the incident at training camp the next year). So 12 of the 14 players interviewed dispute the fact that the players were aware of the incident of the time and the two players that dispute that could provide no details other than Aldridge "wanted to touch penises"
4) The players were taunting Beach. Beach recalls being called derogatory words at the following training camp, as well as being asked if "he missed his boyfriend Brad". None of the players interviewed recall hearing any taunting. This, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen, but certainly suggests that it wasn't a rampant thing throughout training camp. Logically, I find it hard to believe that established NHL players would be taunting a prospect that is of no real threat to them. It seems to me much more likely, and this has been speculated, that it was more likely Black Aces who may have been more likely to be competing with Beach for spots and also more likely to have heard something about the incident.
5) Beach's teammates (IE Kane/Toews and co) failed him. This is another thing that seems to come up time and time again, especially with regards to Toews. First of all, the report details the extent to which the black Aces are separated from the active roster during playoff time. I was actually unaware prior to reading the report of just how separate the two groups were. The idea that this was a teammate that was in the trenches with players on that playoff run is just simply false. Not only was Beach not "teammates" with them during that playoff run, the degree to which the two groups of players were separated makes it much less likely that the active players had any idea of what was going on, and probably explains why 12 of the 14 players interviewed reported not knowing anything about the incident at the time.
6) Who was responsible for "looking into" the incident. Again, this seems to be something that people on this site in particular think is the responsibility of a variety of people, from Bowman to Q to the players. Based on everything we know, it seems that John McDonough said he would take care of it, and it seems everyone assumed that he did. The incident was brought to the attention of the organization in the Western Conference finals. Aldridge basically vanished from the team after the Cup celebrations. So in about a month the person in question was gone from the team. It seems reasonable to assume that most in the organization just assumed that proper policy was followed and that Aldridge was let go. Obviously, that did not happen, but again that seems to fall squarely at the feet of McDonough. It appears that he gave Aldridge the opportunity to leave under his own accord rather than complete a full investigation. This, again, seems to be the most valid criticism about how the whole thing was handled. I would be very interested to hear from someone with a better understanding of the law what should have been done in this situation. I do find it a bit hard to believe that McDonough wouldn't have at least gotten a lawyer's opinion on what should be done. Did the fact that the incident occur outside of the "workplace" affect the decision on what to do about it? If they had immediately fired Aldridge when the incident was brought forward, or removed him from his position immediately, would that have opened them up to being sued by him since, at the time, there was not a criminal accusation made and it did not happen as part of his employment with the Blackhawks? I genuinely don't know. I would love to get some input from someone with more understanding of the law than I.
